Primefree sequences in the OEIS. A bad idea.

[David Wilson]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexandre Wajnberg" <alexandre.wajnberg at skynet.be>
To: "David Wilson" <davidwwilson at comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 3:45 PM
Subject: Re : Primefree sequences in the OEIS. A bad idea.

>>> Yes but has OEIS the unique goal to be a tool useful to a researcher? 
>>> This
>>> is the most important one of course.
>>
>> I agree, the OEIS is not exclusively a research tool. I would guess that,
>> historically, the OEIS was envisioned as a pointer to outside references,
>> i.e, sequences included in Neil's neonate were strictly those referenced
>> in the literature. NJAS still occasionally calls upon editors to review
>> papers and sites and add their references to the database.  And remember
>> that other literature references the OEIS as a learned resource.
>>
>> Clearly, this purpose has been gradually relaxed over time.  The database
>> started to include interesting sequences that were not referenced in the
>> literature, e.g, recreational sequences. When the OEIS came along, and 
>> the
>> general public was allowed to submit, the volume of sequences increased
>> and quality fell.
>>
>So why to accept them? It seems that almost every post is (a kind of) quasi
>automatically entered. (Sometimes we are surprised)

Ultimately, this is NJAS's database.  For historical/personal/technical 
reasons,
NJAS has always stood as the gateway into the database.  Since its inception
of the database, NJAS has personally added every sequence to the OEIS.

This has several consequences.  First, it makes NJAS critical to the 
operation
of the database.  If NJAS is sick or otherwise unable to fulfilly his 
database
duties, everything stops.  Also, NJAS has research duties beyond the
maintenance of the database, which I can't help but think adversely affects 
the
amount of time he spends on the database and his attention to the duty.

I have always contended that in order to improve the general quality of the
database, there has to be a formal review process such as is followed with
other learned resources.  That is, new sequences should be reviewed by
at least two editors, who are able to admit or reject a sequence based on
accuracy, completeness and relevancy.  The downside of this is that it might
discourage amateur submissions, though I haven't decided if this is a good
or bad thing.

Ultimately, we have to see the existing database as a database, without
regard to quality or relevance.  In the past, NJAS has published his 
database
twice in book form, as the "Handbook of Integer Sequences" and the
"Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences".  In each case, NJAS did not publish
all of the sequences in the database, but a subset of relevant sequences.
This indicates to me that a good portion of the database is not up to
publication standards.

So a better solution to this problem might be to put a review process 
between
the existing database and a new database of publication-quality sequences.
This method could also be used to change the format of the database.

>>> Anyway, you as editors, know better than we!
>>
>> ROFL.
>
>I don't understand. Is it an acronym?

Chat word, technically means "rolling on floor laughing" but not in an 
insulting
way.  We editors are only people like you, who have taken on a task.

> Alexandre